The young Technicians working in the transmission substations were convinced the year end date roll over would have no effect on the functionality of the substation. So, without management being aware, they rolled forward the date to 1999-12-30 on every last relay in a major substation.(275KVa).(All with embedded components).

That was some five weeks ago, and it's still running OK (With a date somewhere in January 2000). Well, you might say that was somewhat irresponsible. Fact is they did it and nothing happened.

Kind regards

James Prosser Durban Metro Electricity

-- Anonymous, July 28, 1999

Answers

Isn't it true that a plant requires more than relays to deliver power and ensure safety?

-- Anonymous, July 28, 1999

Polly wanna cracker? :-)

-- Anonymous, July 28, 1999

wow! do i feel better now. just think of all that money the utilities have spent in the last 3yrs, in testing and remediation and equipment upgrades, was for not. thank heaven for those genius line crews and substation techs. you know they really should be paid more than $8 per hour. you idiot! stop by the plant next year for some potable water to wash down those crackers. you POLLY! (oops, i already called him that) love, jon

-- Anonymous, July 28, 1999

I cannot speak to the validity of this post, but I can speak to the reaction to it...if this is a sincere post, it is an interesting first hand report on a specific y2k experience, and one that I find rather amusing but not suprising. I have heard several other stories of "unauthorized" y2k tests from first hand sources.

I am a bit disappointed at the replys from Mr. Core and Mr. jongalt...why the name calling? Why discourage posts by those who may have first hand information? Must everyone who has "positive" information be immediately called a "poly"? If there is information that you have to dispute the above account, please provide your facts. Better still, if you have your own first hand experiences, whether positive or negative, please offer them.

Regards,

-- Anonymous, July 28, 1999

FactFinder,

If there is information you have to *prove* the above account please provide it. Really, doesn't this seem to be an irresponsible statement? I have come to understand that you feel very strongly about the work being done at your own company, but do you have to be so defensive about the thousands of others in the industry?

-- Anonymous, July 28, 1999

I find this report quite believable. We have had similar unauthorised tests carried out at some of our sites.

And just arrived on our Reuters Terminal:

Trans Alta (NZ) Ltd has just announced that it has rolled forward all of its generation and distribution sites in NZ to the year 2000 with no problems. As soon as find it on a public site I'll forward all of the details to the group.

Malcolm

-- Anonymous, July 29, 1999

gimmee a break Fruitcake Finder. do you expect me to believe that these "young tech's" took it upon themselves to potentially F**k up this substation because they were curious. these relays actually have a JOB! which uses the date time stamp (sometimes),records info, digital printouts or paper, etc...etc... AND you don't just "roll forward the date" on a relay, especially "every last relay in a major substation" in a short amount of time. this takes specialized gear, not a Fluke and a screwdriver. if these guys worked for me they would be gone!!!!!! FIRED bigger than sh*t! you don't just haphazardly screw with 275kva substations. hell i don't mess with my 120v at home. And then he mentioned embedded components, ie..embedded chips. go read up/get a clue about embedded chips/sys's and then slap yourself about the head and neck thoroughly with your keyboard. he is obviously a MORON.

gimmee facts not crumbs from your cracker.

love, jongalt

-- Anonymous, July 29, 1999

We have a Year 2000 Project Charter and Plan and a team of 28 Graduate Engineers working towards achieving a "non-event" for the last two years.

Every type and model of relay was extensively tested, you name it, we tested it. Relays only record events by date/time, they are not 'actioned' by a date (or time). In November 1999 we're going to synchronise all relays (hundreds of them) and set them back by one year as a precaution. Seeing they rolled over in 1998, it'll be OK for 2000.

Lastly, I thought this was a serious forum, but it seems that there a couple or more total morons out there, judging by the insults tendered. You guys won't hear from me again, got better things to do than try and help out with facts.

You guys can carry on with all the hysteria until midnight 1999-12- 31, then what are you going to say or do?

James Prosser Year 2000 Project Manager Durban Metro Electricity

-- Anonymous, July 29, 1999

What a pity. Along comes somebody with a verifiable background from inside the industry and he gets driven off for want of ...what? A little bit of civility and maturity. If you have a disagreement, especially with a forum newbie, then educate them about your differences, don't ridicule or insult them. And show some respect (there is a difference between respect and deference).

James, don't go. This IS a serious forum. Don't be put off by a couple of trigger-happy responses. This is the Net and discussions can get a little catty sometimes. The forum needs you, and though you might not believe it just now, you will also find something of value here.

regards,

-- Anonymous, July 29, 1999

You guys can carry on with all the hysteria until midnight 1999- 12- 31, then what are you going to say or do?

Typical Pollyanna hype.

Come on, Fact Finder! If somebody posted the exact same article, but changed the conclusion to "Screens went blank. Professionals panicked. And it took four weeks to get things back to normal" YOU would have JUMPED all over it, demanding NAMES, DATES, TIMES (to the nanosecond), PART NUMBERS OF EVERY PART INVOLVED, etc.

Get real.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 1999

I second Lane's comments. I don't know who Prosser is, but he shows up with trumpets and lights, makes grandiose statements that don't ring true, and gets insulted when he is seriously questioned and challenged. Personally, I don't need a bunch of Prosser's spouting off, I need a bunch of Malcolm Taylors who present quality data.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 1999

Gordon, I'm sure James has no problems with serious questions and challenges, and he has been thoughtful enough to answer one of them on another thread, "Is my utility looking at load shedding? ". That wasn't why he was pissed. It was the TBY2K type labelling he was objecting to. Not everybody is used to this style of Netiquette.

Incidentally, another reason why need James is because he is working for an African utility - a rare participant from that continent.

Regards,

-- Anonymous, July 29, 1999

James, Hope you continue to participate, however I must point out in your post,

"they rolled forward the date to 1999-12-30 ... That was some five weeks ago, and it's still running OK (With a date somewhere in January 2000)"

If you are still running with a date in January after five weeks you had better take some remedial action quickly. I'm sure you meant February, but this is a good time to "be on your toes" as it were.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 1999

James, thank you for posting your experience! Durban, South Africa, has a very nice web site for their city, including great information about Durban Metro Electricity. I wish more U.S. cities had such comprehensive sites about the various aspects which keep their metropolitan areas functioning. (For other readers, the Durban site is at: htpp://www.durban.gov.za/electricity/General/OrgOverview.htm) I also noticed that your company purchases its electricity from ESKOM, the government owned electric utility. Again, for other readers interest, I'd like to say that the ESKOM site at:

http://www.eskom.co.za/

is one of the finest utility web sites I've ever run across, and I've seen a LOT of them. ESKOM supplies 98% of South Africa's electricity, it's one of the lowest cost producers of electricity in the world, and ESKOM's generating capacity is the fourth largest in the world. They also have a comprehensive Y2K section, unusual for many of the utility web sites in various countries which I've visited. I was particularly impressed by the statement re Y2K, "Whilst the opinions voiced below are informed, the Fat Lady has yet to sing!" That seemed to me a marvelous way to sum up the Year 2000 situation, and in addition, it made me smile!

While nothing can excuse impoliteness, I would like you to be aware that in the last few months on various U.S. Y2K forums, reports have been posted which have later turned out to be deliberately "bogus" (a term we use for something false or without validity)and this has naturally caused an extreme skepticism to develop among many readers. Those situations, combined with the sometimes contradictory information about Y2K, have also contributed to a heightened tension and frustration level in those interested in gaining accurate facts about the issue. I'm afraid your kind and valuable post was caught up in the web of these prior situations, and for that I am very sorry. Do you have a saying in South Africa similar to the one we have which goes, "Once burned, twice shy."?

Please accept my apologies for the situation you inadvertantly found yourself in when you posted this information. And please reconsider about no longer involving yourself in this forum. I cannot say that any future information given will not be subject to scrutiny, because that is part of what this forum is about, and there are as many different views as there are people posting or reading here. I can say, however, that there are many readers who welcome your input wholeheartedly. The Year 2000 issue is one which is being fought on a global level, and information sharing does advance the knowledge of all.

Once again, thank you, and I truly do hope to hear from you again on this forum. I extend my best wishes to you and yours,

Bonnie Camp

-- Anonymous, July 29, 1999

Yes, I believe the lines have "hardened" quite a bit between camps (no pun intended Bonnie) on the depth of Y2K disruptions. This trend will probably continue and will only serve to hurt our efforts as a whole. Communication is a two way street. Sorry you got hammered so hard.

By the way, WHERE will you be ringing in the new year? Also, it seems your group is quite confident on Y2K, what is your overall assessment of African nations' readiness? Is it as bad as international reports would have us believe?

-- Anonymous, July 29, 1999

Chris,

Well, I admit I don't speak or understand Aficaans, so maybe that is the problem. And I share Bonnie's desire to hear from other countries. However, the post sounded just like a Stephen Poole statement.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 1999

I apologize for my original reply on this thread. I was inexcusably concise.

This is what I mean. Statements similar in kind to Mr. Prosser's original article, but with a "nothing worked, we're toast" conclusion instead of an "everything went fine, we're saved" conclusion, are typically greeting with demands for detailed documentation, at the very least.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think that such demands are tantamount to an assertion of disbelief in the veracity of the story. No?

Frankly, I could hardly believe it when Mr. Prosser's article appeared, written in a jaunty style that one is more accustomed to finding in the small-print filler items at the end of a main article in the Reader's Digest.

I assumed that we were supposed to take the report at face value. Right? And I was thus flabbergasted. Unaccountably left speechless (if you can believe it), I was reduced to "Polly wanna cracker".

I do not really think Mr. Prosser is a Pollyanna. Just that I could, and can still, hardly believe that we were supposed to accept such an account as it was presented. And that those who do not accept such accounts at face value are somehow guilty of "hysteria".

-- Anonymous, July 29, 1999

I do not wish to convey the idea that the "big day" keeps moving away from us, but 01/01/00 is only the FOCUS date when it comes to Power generation. Yes the question is "will the Grid Stay Up" and there is cause to pause and reflect. But just as important is later in the year 2K. By July we may be experiancing the SHOCK of imported goods like Oil and other Generation fuels. The summer will be just as hot (my prediction) and electricity will be at a premium. Think Global, think local. How will GLOBAL effect local. Electricity is a good place to purchase futures (ha).

It will get worse before it gets better....

-- Anonymous, July 29, 1999

Good point, helium. I don't think there would be any argument from anyone in the U.S., and perhaps the Canadian, electric utility industry, that even without any global Y2K impacts, your statement "It will get worse before it gets better," is true. (For summertime generation/distribution, and winter generation in parts of Canada). All the industry demand-versus-capacity projections I've seen certainly indicate that is the situation for probably the next decade. Regardless of any Y2K impacts, I believe the American public and businesses will have to reconcile themselves to using less electricity in the future.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 1999

James, After reviewing the additional information you provided in your second post, I believe that your initial post is indeed a factual account. In some Y2k forums and newsgroups, any poster who is not well known is automatically "trashed" if the post is not very detailed and makes what the readers feel are "grand" claims and statements that descredit the potential for y2k to be a near catestrophic event. This doesn't happen in euy2k quite as severe or often, but it happens as you unfortunately found out.

As far as digital protective relays used in power distribution, I too have found no date problems that can effect the relays protective functions. This is logical, since the protection features (overcurrent trips, overvoltage, etc, depending on the relays) never use "dates" for the trip function.

Now, responding to other comments and questions:

********* Gordon wrote: "If there is information you have to *prove* the above account please provide it. Really, doesn't this seem to be an irresponsible statement?"

I present some info above Gordon as additional evidence that Jame's post is credible. I suppose I can get some links to digital relay y2k info if I must give "proof." Please, don't make me, I don't have a lot of time to waste, and somehow I doubt it would ever be enough for some... Regarding irresponsible statements, I don't believe that I made any in my initial post above. I have made some in the past though, and reserve the right to make some in the future ;)

******* jongalt wrote: "gimmee a break Fruitcake Finder. do you expect me to believe that these "young tech's" took it upon themselves....." "go read up/get a clue about embedded chips/sys's..."

I really did have to laugh at the name "Fruitcake Finder" (I don't even LIKE fruitcake). Having been involved in two y2k projects at nuclear plants, as a system engineer at one, and as a full time y2k team member providing guidance and support to the engineering department at the other (including test development and testing of software and embedded systems), I though I had a clue, but agree to continue to study and learn. I readily admit though, that to those who rely upon those wonderfully creative white papers on embedded systems found on the net, I shall forever be considered "clueless" about embedded systems and labeled as a "doesn't get it" guy. Somehow, like y2k, I shall survive this too :)

****** Lane wrote: "Come on, Fact Finder! If somebody posted the exact same article, but changed the conclusion to "Screens went blank. Professionals panicked. And it took four weeks to get things back to normal" YOU would have JUMPED all over it, demanding NAMES, DATES, TIMES (to the nanosecond), PART NUMBERS OF EVERY PART INVOLVED, etc."

Lane, didn't we already cover this in another thread...;) Again, you are right See Lane? I often agree with you when the subject isn't a technical discussion of y2k ;) Ok James, I'm gonna be needing a manufactures name and a few model numbers for those digital protective relays...

******

In closing, I want to share this secondhand (twice removed) report concerning "lets move the date up and see what happens" Y2K testing. (I know for a fact that this happens a lot, I have read numerous reports of this, and seen it with my own eyes.)

One of my best friends worked as a Westinghouse field engineer until quite recently. As a WDPF distributed control system engineer, he was aware that moving the date up to the year 2000 on systems that had a data "historian" would cause a certain system problem. One day he recieved a call from a guy at a plant. (I believe a water treatment plant, but don't quote me on that, it.s been a while since I was told this story. WDPFs are used to control power plants too, by the way). Anyway, he gets a call from this plant guy who says "I got some guys standing here from corporate who want to move the date up and make sure our system is y2k compliant." My friend discussed this with another engineer, got back on the phone, and said "don't do it." The plant guy said "it's too late, thats why I called". My friend said, "let me guess...have you got a jukebox?" ("jukebox" is their slang for the cd recorder of the data historian). "Yep", said the plant guy. "And are your cd's full and you're being prompted to put in a new cd?" "Yep" said the plant guy.

(From what my rusty memory recalls, the data historian problem was due to the sudden big gap in data dates caused by artificially moving the date up, the historian was trying to record historical data for the sudden gap in the time period. WDPF experts out there might do a better job of explaining this)

Unauthorized, unplanned, unresearched y2k testing. Does it happen? Do you really need to ask? Lets put it this way, have you rolled your PC date up yet "to see what happens"? lol...

(By the way, if you have not moved the date up on your PC, don't do it until you ensure that the dates you put in will not cause software applications with expiration dates to expire).

Regards,

-- Anonymous, July 29, 1999

James,

I found your original post to be quite credible and understandable from the perspective of those young technicians. Like FactFinder, I wish I could say I was surprised at the positive results. I also wish I could say I was surprised at the unacceptable reactions you were subjected to by my countrymen. I find their apologies rather late and self serving but, at least, offered within the same public arena as their original scorn.

It is pleasing to hear that South Africa is well aware of and working on the Year 2000 problem. I certainly wish you the best in your efforts. I regret that you feel compelled to remove yourself from this forum. I firmly believe that Ricks forum provides one of the more serious platforms for earnest dialogue concerning the single most important component of todays world community, electricity and the potential threat of Y2K. I have learned a lot here from both sides. I sincerely hope you reconsider.

Again, you have my best wishes.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 1999

Look, I have no way to verify the "bona fides" of Prosser. But he shows up with an ALL IN CAPS title, which is trumpet stuff, then throws out a "PR" type statement, and gets miffed at the response. As Harry Truman once said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

-- Anonymous, July 30, 1999

Gordon,

I think James had a right to be miffed at some of the responses he received. It is not as if he posted annoymously - he gave his full name and a valid domain name in his e-mail address.

As to having "no way to verify the 'bona fides'", I am a little mystified why you said that. He gave what looks like a real e-mail address. One could start by e-mailing him, which is exactly what I did yesterday. I asked James if I could verify his name and position at his company. He e-mailed me back today (from the same domain name) to say that it was no problem for me to phone him at work. Included with his e-mail were his work/cell/fax numbers. (With the time difference I won't be able to do this until Monday, but will report back then.)

Can we all agree that James is 99.9% legitimate and that it was a mistake to jump all over him? And, further, can we encourage him to keep posting so that this forum gets an insider's take on the situation in Africa?

Regards

-- Anonymous, July 30, 1999

Mike,

I certainly don't mind hearing the opinions of Prosser, after all we have a number of "experts" right here who don't even give their legitimate email addresses. However, I will remind you the Stephen Poole, CET, has always given his correct name and email address. IMHO time has exposed Poole for what he is, a confirmed Polly. Now, this is Rick's forum, not mine, and I have no right to censor out any posts, but personally, a Polly poster is worse than useless to me. So if that's what Prosser turns out to be it will be a shame. As I have said previously, I wish we had 100 Malcolm Taylor types signing on.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 1999

Gordon,

I don't think the "Poole Rule" applies in this case. Poole's "hoax" was posted under an anonymous pseudonym ("worried utility worker", if memory serves).

You wrote:

>>IMHO time has exposed Poole for what he is, a confirmed Polly. Now, this is Rick's forum, not mine, and I have no right to censor out any posts, but personally, a Polly poster is worse than useless to me. So if that's what Prosser turns out to be it will be a shame<<

So, if Mr Prosser turns out to be who he says he is (which is looking extrememly likely) but holds views that you don't share then he will be "useless" to you and it will be a "shame".

Gordon, this is bizarre. We have a person who is working at a power company in Y2K remediation who is passing on information gained from that Y2K remediation. So far, the information he has passed on can be classified as "good news". Why is this news "useless" to you?

In my opinion the only way you can hold such views as you do is that you think Mr Prosser is lying about who he is and/or he is lying about the results of his testing and remediation.

What am I missing here?

Regards

-- Anonymous, July 30, 1999

Mike,

OK, here is what I think you are missing. You don't really know who this Prosser guy is or what his motives are. Yet you are really hopping on the defensive for him. Go back and read his post at the top. Start with the Trumpets Blaring ALL CAPS. Consider the lack of detail in his brief anecdote. Consider the apparent motive, which seems to be stating a small victory without further depth, a typical Polly type posting. You have certainly seen this sort of thing before on other sites. And I was *not* referring to Poole's fraudulent posting, but rather to his countless other "no big deal" posts. Frankly, I am mystified that you would take such an immediate backup position for Prosser without knowing any more than you do about him. Just what is *your* motive here? I think I have made it quite clear as to how I feel about Polly postings, period, and that should not be confusing you at this point.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 1999

Mike,

Let me go one step further in explaining my attitude and position. Some of the Y2k information or positive outlook statements are both misleading and inherently dangerous. I compare it to the Challenger O- Rings disaster, and the "engineering" meeting that took place the night before the launch. A couple of concerned/alarmed engineers tried to influence the rest of the group, including management, to "shut down" the projected launch due to possible environmental dangers to the engines. No luck. The Polly group won out. It won't be a problem, they said, we've handled such things before. A Polly attitude is a tragic position in the face of potential disaster. Should I repeat that? We can't tolerate Polly opinions in this current scenario any more than the Challenger opinions that were based on keeping the status quo going and saving face. I am as adamant in my opinion about this as the two engineers who tried to get their points across, and failed. Now, you either understand and agree with me on that, or you don't. I don't control your attitude. Prosser's post was, on the face of it, a "no big deal" statement. That is just not acceptable to me now that we are in the "end game."

-- Anonymous, July 30, 1999

Gordon

We are obviously on different points of the Y2K continuum, and it shows in the way we react to a post like that by Mr Prosser.

I entered the discussion to state the he had a right to be miffed about the rude reception he received here. Prosser posted under a "real" name and e-mail address, not a handle and a made-up address. I then started a process whereby I could verify who he said he was - does this qualify as "really hopping on the defensive for him"?

You said that "Prosser's post was, on the face of it, a "no big deal" statement" - yes, it was...about the situation in a substation. Prosser made no extrapolations beyond that. His statement was interesting, in my opinion, because it provides some corroboration for things that some of the util engineer regulars on this forum have been saying for the past few months.

You have questioned my motive ("Just what is *your* motive here?") - for the record I am an interested layman who is trying to sift through the babble of words that is Y2K and find some hard facts. I'm sure that we can agree that this is not easy. I imagine that by your definition I am a "polly". So be it. You have made your judgement as to where I stand, others will make theirs.

I must however disagree with your statement that "a Polly attitude is a tragic position in the face of potential disaster...We can't tolerate Polly opinions in this current scenario". Are you really saying that public forums like this should be restricted to opinions that are non-Polly? The essence of debate is that all sides of an issue are presented and the audience then judges which position he or she deems to be the most valid. If the "doomer" positions are presented well and logically then people will give credence to them. Similarly with "polly" positions. But it is essential for all positions to be presented. In summary, censorship benefits no-one.

This thread has wandered away from the initial information posted by Mr Prosser, so perhaps it is time to move on. I thank you for a civil discussion.

(By the way, I was interested in your Challenger O-ring analogy. I'm not convinced that it can be applied to Y2K. I will think about it, though, and perhaps I will e-mail you privately with some more thoughts.)

Regards

-- Anonymous, August 01, 1999

Mike,

Agreed! And FYI, I am not a doomer, but I am very pessimistic.

-- Anonymous, August 01, 1999

Nature Cannot Be Fooled

-- Anonymous, August 02, 1999

James,

I have also been frustrated in my efforts to communicate here. It seems that no one can tell me how mainframes are used in a power company's organization. This is greatly troubling since I think that this is the most likely point of failure. I imagine that they are important, but perhaps they are not. How else can I get more information?

I don't want failure. I just don't want to be ignorant.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 1999

http://www.euy2k.com/hecoy2k.htmIt seems that no one can tell me how mainframes are used in a power company's organization.

In power production? Well, I certainly can't tell you. :-) I can refer you, however, to Description of Hawaiian Electric Company Y2K Findings - Energy Management System, which says that VAXen are used in EMS.

Most VAXen aren't, strictly speaking, mainframes: they are typically mini-computers, sometimes micro-computers; their are a few later models, however, that are mainframes. Nonetheless, all are often casually lumped in with mainframes as opposed to personal computers.

As far as the business side goes (accounts receivable, payable, payroll, customer service, financials, etc.), I suppose that mainframes would be used, or not, as they would in any other company.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 1999

How'd that leading URL get in there?.... :-)

-- Anonymous, August 02, 1999